Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New Logo and Identity for Library of Congress

underconsideration.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 75 posts

Re: New Logo and Identity for Library of Congress

#41

Post by lainga »

claytonjy wrote: post #22

interesting tidbit from the comments there; this design firm, Pentagram, also did the recent redesign for EFF: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/07/effs-new-logo-member-s... Looks very similar, and while I strongly dislike the Library of Congress redesign, it almost works for EFF.

It is the same logo. Big heavy sans-serif font with the full name of the org stuck in the middle. The only difference is EFF's big EFF letters are stretched and the full title is condensed, while LIBRARY LIBRARY's big LIBRARY is condensed and the full title is normal-width.

Re: New Logo and Identity for Library of Congress

#43

Post by whatshisface »

ArchTypical wrote: post #27

The redesign looks fine. Most people, seeing the log, will never have visited a Library as they fade into obscurity beyond obsolescence. It's good to get ahead and set up the idea that it is THE Library.

Until books currently under copyright become readable for free online (i.e. never), libraries - even in their original form and with their original purpose - will still be useful for a unique purpose that can't be achieved in other ways.

Re: New Logo and Identity for Library of Congress

#44

Post by [deleted] »

Fomite wrote: post #37
bovermyer wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My biggest problem with the new logo is that they're effectively un-branding the Library of Congress by trying to brand it as LIBRARY. That's like trying to rebrand the White House as HOUSE.

Their concern is that too many people read "...of Congress" and assume it's not for them. They're very much pushing the idea that it's a library first. Not sure I like how they did that, but I get the idea.

[deleted]

Re: New Logo and Identity for Library of Congress

#45

Post by c5karl »

ArchTypical wrote: post #27

The redesign looks fine. Most people, seeing the log, will never have visited a Library as they fade into obscurity beyond obsolescence. It's good to get ahead and set up the idea that it is THE Library.

Libraries are far from fading into obscurity.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/21/millennials-...

Re: New Logo and Identity for Library of Congress

#46

Post by weehobbes »

I actually like the concept of inserting the images in between the "LIBRARY" bookends. I agree that the narrow slab san-serif typeface is mildly inappropriate for a library, but it's passable assuming the intent is for the brand to feel bolder and more modern. My biggest complaint is the omission of a logomark. The old logomark was boring and uninspired, and I think Pentagram not doing a logomark was a huge missed opportunity. They had the chance to create a truly iconic logomark for an iconic institution, and instead said "Eh, logotype is enough." It is definitely not enough.

Re: New Logo and Identity for Library of Congress

#48

Post by c3534l »

I don't think the library of congress should have an aggressive, in-your-face logo. It's a library. It's mission statement is about maintaining history. There's no reason to try to appeal to hip coffee shop urbanites. The old logo was both more clever (resembling the American flag and a book at the same time), and still pretty darned modern. Designing a new, tone-deaf logo is a waste of everyone's time and resources.

Re: New Logo and Identity for Library of Congress

#49

Post by omnimus »

smacktoward wrote: post #15
amacbride wrote: post #6

Gah, that's awful. It looks more like the branding for a protein bar: "New EXTREME library to the maaaaax! Get some!!"

It is kind of amazing how inappropriate a slab typeface feels for a library.

Just nitpicking it is not slab typeface. It is good old sans-serif

Re: New Logo and Identity for Library of Congress

#50

Post by zerocrates »

Eric_WVGG wrote: post #14
clircle wrote: post #5

My gut reaction is that this new logo is strictly worse than the old one. This is my first time seeing either of the logos. Can someone with a graphic arts background explain why the LoC is so attracted to this new design (after only 8 years with the previous one)?

They traded what was "just a logo" for an entire design system. This is the branding equivalent of Google’s “Material Design.” Also for what it’s worth Pentagram — and Paula Scher — are very prestigious, considered top-of-their-field. But I agree they phoned this in. Unnecessary and uninspired.

Ah, so it's a much more expensive bad logo.
Post reply on HN